International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

New methodological framework to improve productivity and ergonomics in

assembly system design
D. Battini a, *, M. Faccio b, A. Persona a, F. Sgarbossa a
a
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella San Nicola, 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
b
Department of Innovation in Mechanics and Management, University of Padova, Via Venezia 1, 35131, Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work analyses how ergonomics and assembly system design techniques are intimately related. It
Received 17 June 2009 also develops a new theoretical framework to assess a concurrent engineering approach to assembly
Received in revised form systems design problems, in conjunction with an ergonomics optimization of the workplace. Its purpose
18 October 2010
is to provide professionals with a new and detailed approach to assembly system design procedures that
Accepted 2 December 2010
Available online 5 January 2011
includes ergonomics issues.
The methodological framework offered takes into account technological variables (related to work
times and methods), environmental variables (i.e. absenteeism, staff turnover, work force motivation)
Keywords:
Ergonomics
and ergonomics evaluations (i.e. human diversity) to create a comprehensive analysis.
Assembly system At conclusion of the study, the work reports data and insights from two real industrial cases, where an
Balancing problem advanced simulation software is used, to validate the procedure and support methodology applicability.
Integrated approach Relevance to industries: This work provides an extremely valuable methodological framework to
Methodological framework companies who recognize the link between assembly and ergonomics. The methodology underlines the
necessity to analyze and classify the assembly system layout configuration in relation to both techno-
logical and environmental parameters- as reported in the framework.
Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and literature review
Generally, an assembly line could be dedicated to produce
a single product model or multiple product models, where many
items could be processed simultaneously in batches or handled in
lot sizes of one item for each product model. Three main kinds of
Assembly Line Balancing Problem (ALBP) are represented in liter-
ature (Becker and Scholl, 2006 and Scholl, 1995):

Single-model assembly line balancing problem (SALBP).

Batch-model assembly line balancing problem (BMALBP).

Mixed-model assembly line balancing problem (MALBP).
Published literature on assembly systems design often focuses
on balancing and sequencing procedures and addresses the MALBP
in relation with different layout configurations (i.e. serial layout,
U-shaped, fixed position, two-sided, parallel lines) developing exact
or heuristic methods (Battini et al., 2007, 2008). A number of papers,
reviewed in a survey by Becker and Scholl (2006), aim to optimize
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 (0) 444 998735; fax: þ39 (0) 444 998889.
E-mail address: daria.battini@unipd.it (D. Battini).
pre-existing systems or balance new assembly configurations,
without scrutinizing the workplace ergonomics or task times value
feasibility and correctness. Since several activities performed in
assembly systems, in particular those associated with repetitive
movements and with considerable level of stress or with extended
assumption of uncomfortable postures, might be correlated to the
insurgence of work related musculoskeletal disorders -WMSDs-
(Wick and McKinnis, 1998), we can now clearly notice a strong link
between assembly systems and ergonomics, both in theory and in
practice. Benefits provided by ergonomics application in assembly
systems design are first of all linked to the reduction in occupational
injury risks and to the improvement of physical and psychosocial
conditions of the workforce with a drastic reduction in all costs
linked to absence, medical insurance, and rehabilitation (Carey and
Gallwey, 2002).
In addition, ergonomics improvements improve quality and
operators productivity (Drury, 2000; and Eklund, 1995, 1997).
Usually, ergonomics evaluations are performed by ergonomists,
while workplace layouts are designed by planning engineers, and
the results are often unsatisfactory and do not improve productivity
(Carey and Gallwey, 2002). Previous projects on this topic
demonstrated the extra value of combining assembly engineering
with ergonomics (Van Lingen et al., 2002; De Looze et al., 2003),

0169-8141/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2010.12.001
 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42
and many of the experiences collected by the authors of this paper
lead to recognize that traditional task times analysis procedures are
not sufficient in case of time losses due to workers disability
(Allesina et al., 2010). Thus, a workplace solution that seems to
provide the shortest cycle time might not be able to respect the
schedule at all time or might increase disability time for the
operators due to a low macro and micro-ergonomic level of the
work system.
Of the existing literature on the subject, the present study
reviewed only works, regarding ergonomics studies in assembly
systems and the integration of ergonomics and production system
design. Methodological or conceptual frameworks in order to link
ergonomics to company activity have been developed by several
authors underlining, in different ways, physical, organizational and
psychological aspects of the workplace. Rubenowitz (1997) defined
a six steps work flow, aimed at eliminating ergonomic problems
and emphasizing that attention should be paid not only to physical
conditions, but also to psychosocial conditions, since an unsatis-
factory psychosocial work environment has been proved to
contribute to musculoskeletal problems, in many cases.
Dul and Neumann (2009) discussed the link between ergo-
nomics and strategy according to Porter’s corporate classification:
differentiation strategy, cost strategy, resource-based strategy, and
service profit chain strategy (Porter, 1985), finding evidence that the
links can be done by looking at variables that are directly involved in
business during the analysis and design of an environment.
Neumann et al. (2009) studied the logistic barriers within the
production system and assisted to integrate ergonomics into system
design.
After this thorough reading of existing material, the authors
concluded that developmental groups with a primarily ergonomic
focus are vulnerable to disruption and may not survive long,
instead try to embed ergonomics elements into existing groups.
Sundin et al. (2004) and Neumann et al. (2006) showed that design
decisions made early in the product design process affect both
ergonomics and productivity. Psychosocial conditions appear to be
affected by a combination of system elements including layout,
flow, and work organization, with the conclusion that the system
designer needs to consider several elements and needs to take
a multi-criteria approach, when is used to selecting the best system
strategy (i.e., the material supply strategy selection case study
proposed in Neumann and Medbo, 2010).
Siemieniuch and Sinclair (2002, 2006) studied the relation
between ergonomics and company business from an organizational
point of view. They highlighted implications for ergonomics in
process design, organizational structure, and the delivery of good,
and studied systems integration, from an ergonomics/human
factors perspective. Sinclair (2007), instead, attempted to describe
systems design by its complexity and how ergonomics practitioners
should be interested in its effects, defining “intrinsic complexity”
(inherent in the purposes of the system) and “induced complexity”
(introduced by the organization, process design and operation of
the system).
Garrigou et al. (1995) proposed an ergonomic design method-
ology of identifying typical action situations, some of which can be
transposed to the future installation, which allowed to single out
situations linked to incidents, start-up, adjustments, cleaning,
evacuation of waste, etc. Daniellou (2007, pp. 84e90) continued
this design approach in term of “ergonomic simulation”, classifying
the different types of simulation according to the role they assign to
the future users. Kadefors et al. (1996) studied the impact of
ergonomics into assembly line design with parallel assembly line
system. Ergonomic analyses of postural and musculoskeletal strain
showed that parallel flow production was superior to traditional
car assembly according to the serial flow production concept.
31
Engstrom and Medbo (1997) and Engström et al. (1999) reported
different data collection and analysis of assembly systems, using
the so-called ‘loss analysis’, integrating it with the OWAS meth-
odology, and evaluating the ergonomic conditions in a parallelized
flow with long cycle time, assembly system.
Digital human modelling tools (DHM-tools) are increasingly
used to perform ergonomics analyses of manual industrial
assembly tasks (first of all in the automotive sector), but their use is
still very complex and requires good expertise in different fields
(Lämkull et al., 2009). As described by Neumann et al. (2009),
primarily ergonomic focuses are vulnerable to disruption and may
not survive long, but continuously trying to integrate ergonomics
into the design process is a better long term solution. Most of the
scientific literature in ergonomics does not integrate with design
methodology, and even when integration is done, authors do not
concentrate the study in a specific production system, they tend to
consider its specific technical variables, or offer a generic ergo-
nomic approach, useful in strategic or tactical decisions, but not in
operational applications.
On the other hand, available assembly system design method-
ologies do not always take into account the industrial environment
from beginning to end, or where the assembly takes place, nor
production volume, or job enlargement strategy, or work repeat-
ability and learning effect, or organization flexibility, or yet work
force turnover and absence (Abdullah et al., 2003). For this reason,
it is becoming of paramount importance to create a research that
develops and validate an integrated approach in assembly system
design, and that takes into account technological variables (related
to assembly times and methods), and environmental/ergonomics
variables (i.e. human diversity).
The purpose of this work is to develop an efficient, flexible, and
robust methodological framework, validated through case studies,
that covers all steps required during the design of an assembly
system and takes into consideration both technological and envi-
ronmental variables. Such a framework should consider not only
technological aspects (normally considered in traditional proce-
dures, i.e. Becker and Scholl, 2006), but also variables linked to
industrial environment and work force (typically considered by
ergonomists), in order to guarantee top productivity and highly-
motivated work force. The framework suggested in this paper is
intended for production engineers interested in ergonomics and
involved in pre-production design and interested in the selection of
the right assembly system. The ideal situation presents room for
changes in both assembly system layout and workplace design, as
well as the desire to achieve high productivity and the realization
that best results are easily accomplished with the optimization of
both production time and operator load.
2. Method
2.1. New methodological framework
Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual framework developed to assess
the assembly system design and optimization, linking productivity
with ergonomics considerations: it shows all main variables and
decisions involved in the integrated procedure. The procedure
proposed consists of three different sections: technological vari-
ables, environmental variables, integrated procedure.

Technological variables: all variables linked to the product’s
characteristics, to the assembly process, to the industrial
market and to the space available.

Environmental variables: all variables linked to the work force
and its physiological and psychological safety and wellbeing,
considering also the psychosocial factors.
32 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

INTEGRATED PROCEDURE

1. PRODUCT
FAMILY
TECHNOLOGICAL VARIABLES ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES

VARIABLES LINKED TO MARKET 2. ASSEMBLY

DEMAND CYCLE VARIABLES LINKED TO WORK
DEFINITION FORCE
1) Production volume
2) Production mix: 1) Labor turnover and replacements
- single model assembly system strategies
- mixed model assembly system 3. ASSEMBLY 2) Absenteeism
- multi model assembly system TIMES 3) Work allocation
3) Flexibility required in production mix ESTIMATION - Maximum length of sustainable work
and production volume load per operator
- Job enlargement/assembly content
VARIABLES LINKED TO PRODUCT 4. PRODUCTION FLOW STRATEGY - Physical human diversity
SELECTION: - Learning curve
1) Product life time (flexibility to - Task repetitiveness
products variations and changes) 1) System layout 4) Trade-unions involvement
2) Products components: 2) Cycle time (paced/un-paced) 5) Psychosocial Factors
3) Workstations type (i.e. open/closed, - Influence on and control over work
- number/commonality/modularity - Stimulus from the work itself
- physical dimension and weight parallel/serial, two-sided,..) - Supervisor climate
4) Automation level - Relations with fellow workers
VARIABLES LINKED TO 5) Rough-cut capacity planning - Psychological work load
ASSEMBLY PROCESS

1) Assembly tasks
- time length 5. ASSEMBLY 6. ERGONOMICS VARIABLES LINKED TO
TIMES EVALUATION ERGONOMICS AND SAFETY:
- time variability MEASUREMENT
2) Assembly cycle and precedence
diagram configuration Workplace 1) Tasks repetitiveness
3) Process setup times design 2) Movements length/muscolar load
3) Body posture
VARIABLES LINKED TO SPACE 4) Maximum and normal work area
5) Weight handled
7. ERGONOMICS
1) Space available for: IMPROVEMENTS NO 6) Anthropometrics data
- assembly system 7) Human diversity
- materials inventories 8) Automation level required to
- human resources prevent injuries/diseases
- material handling/lifting devices

ERGO QUALITY
SATISFACTION

OK

8. OPTIMAL
WORKPLACE
DESIGN

14. STANDARD
TIMES 9. SYSTEM
DEFINITION BALANCING

10. SYSTEM
SEQUENCING

13. FINAL OUTPUT REALIZED

12. PERFORMANCE MONITORING
REPORTING

11. INCENTIVES AND

INCREMENTAL
IMPROVEMENTS

PRODUCTIVITY AND
ERGO QUALITY
INCREMENT

PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE: STEPS 1, 2, 3, 4

DETAILED DESIGN PHASE: STEPS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
MANAGEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT PHASE: STEPS 11, 12, 13, 14

Fig. 1. Integrated methodological framework to assess productivity and ergo-quality performances in assembly system design.
 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

Integrated procedure: the flow chart illustrates the principal 14
steps required by the integrated design of an assembly system
and their inter-correlation. The purpose of the whole design
procedure is to maximize both system productivity and work
force physic and psychosocial conditions through a stage of
careful analysis and the investigation of different assembly
workplace solutions according to the requirements in assembly
times length and ergonomics conditions.
The framework aims to:
1) provide a systematic approach to support an assembly system
designer during the whole project design: the 14 steps (reported
in Fig. 1) sum-up all design and management activities required
and the two grey panels (on the left and on the right in Fig. 1)
provide a comprehensive list of all technological and environ-
mental variables which influence the design process by a holistic
point of view.
2) describe all connections between input variables and output
variables, using the block diagram in Fig. 1.
3) highlight that, only after the successful conclusion of the first 8
steps out of 14, it is possible to apply those traditional and well
known balancing/sequencing techniques, often discussed in
literature on assembly system design (most are reviewed by
Becker and Scholl, 2006).
The 14 steps are grouped into three consecutive phases (as
shown in the legend of Fig. 1):
1. A “Preliminary Design Phase” which involves steps 1, 2, 3 and 4,
ending with the assembly layout configuration selection.
2. A “Detailed Design Phase”, which involves steps 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10, ending with the assembly system completely balanced and
sequenced.
3. A “Management and Improvement Phase”, which involves
steps 11, 12, 13 and 14.
2.2. Preliminary design phase
The Preliminary Design Phase goes from step 1 to step 4 and
focuses on the product family analysis and on the creation of an
assembly process scheme, which is the logical progression of
operation necessary to assembly the end-products. Then, this phase
assumes that the design of product is just performed, especially
using Design for Assembly techniques, which consider also several
ergonomics and productivity aspects. The assembly cycle will be
subdivided into principal tasks: a set of elementary tasks per-
formed in sequence by the operator, the actuator or both; while
elementary tasks are defined as a group of one or more indivisible
primary movements that are assignable to a single operator. During
the analysis, such tasks subdivision permits to perform the three
basic steps necessary to the operations managers to decide on
accurate assembly procedures. The three steps are:
1) Accurate task times measurement
2) Improvement assessments with identification of ergonomics
solutions
3) Database compilation to record and estimate company stan-
dard task times.
Only at the end of the third step (Fig. 1) it is possible to formulate
an estimation of time requirement and eventually reach proper
assembly procedures.
As previously introduced by Neumann et al. (2006), a specific
system configuration design has consequences for both productivity
33
and ergonomics, and the choice of the adopted system depends on
several important design system elements. As described in their case
study, regarding the change of parallel system in serial line, the latter
has showed a starting increased risk of WMSDs, but elements like
work organization, operational control systems, automation level
and feeding system have brought the managers to select this
configuration. The use of team structures in the new system imp-
roved several psychosocial and physic condition, decreasing the
overall risk of WMSDs.
As a result, in the proposed framework, the interdependence of
technological and environmental variables is taken into account in
the fourth step which offers the best assembly system solution and
the highest efficiency, with five critical decision variables: assembly
system layout configuration, cycle time, workstations type, auto-
mation level and minimum number of resources (automated/
human) required.
The assembly system layout configuration can vary a great deal
to satisfy different production needs (serial line, U-line, serial line
with parallel stations, parallel lines, fixed positions, two-sided lines,
four-sided lines, etc.). Fig. 2 shows the most important configura-
tion alternatives considered in the study and generally addressed in
literature and in practice. The “cycle time” indicates the time
elapsed between completions of two consequent units which can
happen in a paced or un-paced line. Generally, in a “paced line”, the
handling system is periodically moving while an “un-paced line” is
equipped with buffers located between stations (the decoupling
buffers can be realized between groups of stations or between
single stations), considering that workstations can be open or
closed, parallel or serial, automatic, semi-automatic or manual.
The automation level defined in the 4th step of the procedure is
strongly connected with the production volume, the number of
task involved in the assembly cycle and the number of different
parts involved in the product assembly (Battini et al., 2007) while
resource requirements consist of the static computation of the
minimum number of human operators or automated equipments
required to reach the desired production rate.
One of the most common mistakes in system design (fourth
step) is to make decisions based only on few variables that seem
relevant, without taking into account the repercussions they might
have in the long run. For this reason, Fig. 3 maps four new quali-
tative cross-matrices that might be considered in choosing the best
assembly configuration. These maps provide a link between tech-
nological and environmental variables by a qualitative point of
view. Each map can assist the designer with new information and
guideline about the best assembly system configuration to choose.
The four maps proposed by the authors in Fig. 3 are complementary
to each other and each offers specific information that lead to
a better understanding of the optimal configuration.
Matrix a) classifies assembly layout configurations according to
three variables linked to the assembly process (on the left), level of
turnover and absenteeism tolerated by the system (on the right),
production rate, and number of operators required to reach the
desired production volume. The set of variables considered on the
two vertical sides of the matrix influence the system balance and
might lead to differences between the achieved productivity and
the forecasted productivity.
For example, as reported in the cross-matrix the Bucket Brigade
balancing method might become a possibility in case of high vari-
ability in task time and high flexibility required when the number
of operators is medium-low. “Bucket-brigades” are a way of orga-
nizing workers on an assembly line so that the line balances itself.
Each worker carries a product towards completion; when the last
worker finishes his product he walks back upstream to take over
the work of his predecessor, who walks back and takes over the
work of his predecessor and so on, until, after relinquishing his
34 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

1. Straight line (paced/unpaced) 5. Parallel lines (paced/unpaced)

IN OUT
IN OUT

IN 2. U- line (paced/unpaced) 6. Two-sided lines (paced/unpaced)

IN OUT

1 2 3 n
OUT

IN

3. Straight line with parallel stations (unpaced) 7. Fixed position (single or parallel individual work stations)
parallel stations

IN S1 OUT IN OUT

S2

4. Straight line with serial stations (paced/unpaced) 8. Multi-turns circular transfer/rotating table (unpaced)

Duplicate stations IN/OUT

IN OUT IN/OUT
S1 S2 L/U 1- n turns L/U 1- n turns

Fig. 2. Alternative assembly layout configurations considered in Step 4 of the framework in Fig. 1.

a b
Operations lenght, precedence diagram

SERIAL SEMI- AUTOMATIC

SERIAL PACED SERIAL MANUAL
Labour turnover and absenteism

Assembly phases displacement

SERIAL PACED/UNPACED LINE AUTOMATIC SERIAL LINE WITH
LINE LINE
Assembly time variability

UNPACED LINE SERIAL STATIONS

Assembly cycle lenght
sequentiality

AUTOMATIC
SEMI-AUTOMATIC
SERIAL UNPACED PARALLEL SERIAL LINE WITH
SERIAL U-LINE PARALLEL LINES PARALLEL LINES
LINE MANUAL LINES PARALLEL
or U-LINE
STATIONS

UNPACED LINE U-LINE BUCKET PARALLEL LINES MANUAL FIXED SEMI-AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC
BUCKET BRIGADE BRIGADE or FIXED POSITIONS FIXED POSITIONS PARALLEL LINES
METHOD METHOD POSITIONS

Operators number, Production rate Automation

c d
Flexibility (mix and production quantity)

UNPACED LINE FIXED POSITIONS FIXED POSITIONS

Lenght of sustainable working load

UNPACED PARALLEL/U-LINE/FIXED
BUCKET BRIGADE PARALLEL LINES WITH PARALLEL WITH PARALLEL
POSITIONS
METHOD STATIONS STATIONS

SERIAL UNPACED PARALLEL PARALLEL

PARALLEL LINES
SERIAL UNPACED LINE WITH PCED PARALLEL LINES/U-LINE LINES/U-LINE
or FIXED
LINE or U-LINE PARALLEL LINES BUCKET BRIGADE BUCKET BRIGADE
POSITIONS
STATIONS METHOD METHOD

SERIAL PACED SERIAL UNPACED PACED SERIAL UNPACED SERIAL UNPACED SERIAL
LINE LINE LINES LINES LINES

Setup number Influence of Trade Unions

Fig. 3. Qualitative cross-matrices examples to support decisions in Step 4.

 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42
product, the first worker walks back to the starting point and
begins with a new product. Workers are sequenced from slow to
fast; they will spontaneously gravitate to the optimal division of
work that will maximize throughput (Bartholdi et al., 1999).
Matrix b) classifies assembly layout configurations according to
the level of automation used and the assembly steps displacement
duration, which creates difficulty in system balancing.
Matrix c) correlates assembly layout configurations according to
the level of flexibility required and the number of equipment setups
necessary during the assembly cycle.
Matrix d) correlates assembly layout configurations according to
two important variables linked to the work force: the level of influ-
ence of trade unions in the company, and the length of sustainable
working load by operators.
At the end of the Preliminary Design Stage, the designer should be
able to select the right assembly layout configuration and calculate
the minimum number of resources required, in relation with the
technological and environmental constraints addressed above, with
particular attention to the system design elements and psychosocial
conditions that can affect to the risk of WMSDs in the successive steps.
2.3. Detailed design phase
The Detailed Design Phase (Fig. 1) goes from step 5 to step 10
and starts with a complete task times analysis (step 5), which is
necessary to identify bottlenecks and time losses due to material
flow and ergonomics. Work time measurement and ergonomics
evaluation must be jointly performed for each workplace configu-
ration tested in a multistage iterative procedure that integrates
different tools such as time study techniques, ergonomics evalua-
tion methods and, when necessary, Visual Interactive Simulation
for a complete validation of results obtained (using software tools
to test different assembly solutions and men-models according to
ergonomics considerations).
A time study is an analytical procedure used to establish the best
method of accomplishing a task and to establish the “fair day’s
work” time necessary for an operator to complete that task
successfully (Lindenmeyer, 2001).
Following are the main task time measurement techniques
considered in step 5 (Fig. 1):
1) Direct times measurements (i.e. the “Bedaux method”): con-
sisting on the direct survey of each elementary task time with
contextual record of the performance (pace) rate of the oper-
ator. Computer-Integrated Time Study has been developed to
assist in the collection, management, analysis, charting, and
reporting of time study data (Lindenmeyer, 2001).
2) Predetermined motion time systems (PMTS), the most
commonly used are MTM and the BasicMOST.
3) Work Sampling procedures.
The result of a time study is an engineered standard time that
considers the performance (pace) rate of the operator during the
study; considering personal needs, rest to overcome fatigue and the
unavoidable delays. Such performance rates are usually subjective
and experimental, and given the big fluctuation in results that can
vary between 10% and 30% of the total assembly time recorded for
each basic operation (such as the Table of “pace coefficients”
developed by Bedaux), there are still several doubts on their correct
use in practice. Ergonomics evaluation criteria, in fact, are often
affected by differences according to different analyst objectives,
different criteria of acceptability used and levels of detail (Berlin
et al., 2009). Moreover, the “human diversity” dramatically affects
the operator performance analysis and the workplace design
choices. Variations appear in width (at various points of the body),
35
hand size, reach, weight and so more. Anthropometric measure-
ments (one of the seven variables linked to ergonomics and safety
in the conceptual scheme of Fig. 1) used for adults usually include
body parts dimensions, grip strength, height, weight and body
mass index (BMI). These measures are then compared to reference
standards to assess weight status and the risk for various diseases
and, in our case, to create a clear and detailed evaluation of the
workplace, as suggested in the framework reported in Fig. 1 (step
6). Many ergonomics evaluation techniques can be used during
these steps: self assessment evaluation techniques, observation
methods through video recordings or software tools to compute
ergonomics indexes (RULA, REBA, OCRA, OWAS, Cube Model, etc.),
electromyography analysis (EMG) and spectroscopy-derived
measures (i.e. Near-infrared spectroscopy, Lin et al., 2010) to
investigate the effects of power tool-induced torque reaction and
work-rest pattern. Any of these techniques allows the assembly
system designer to identify the necessary ergonomics improve-
ments/changes according to five main actions:
1. Change material (assembly components) disposition
2. Change tools and instruments disposition
3. Apply/improve movement economy principles
4. Introduce/change lifting/handling devices and automated
equipments (in order to implement a “zero lift” policy)
5. Duplicate operators and improve staff training
These findings imply that spectroscopy-derived measures are
able to reflect upper extremity physical demands experienced by
the tool operators, and therefore NIRS is a useful alternative tech-
nique to broaden the understanding of tissue physiological changes
resulted from upper extremity activities. The outcome of the iter-
ative workplace design procedure (cycle of steps 5, 6 and 7) is the
definition of the optimal kind and number of workstations, space
required, tools location, equipments needed, considering all the
variables linked to ergonomics and safety (step 6).
After step 7, a general ergo-quality evaluation is necessary to
continue the design process. In fact, as described in Preliminary
Design Phase, the system configuration selection is influenced by
both technological and environmental system design elements,
with particular attention to the psychosocial conditions, that affect
to the risk of WMSDs evaluated during Detailed Design Phase.
As a consequence, if workplace design does not guarantee
a certain ergo-quality level, the loop back to system configuration
design phase (step 4) is necessary in order to select a system
configuration that impact less on psychosocial conditions. A loop
back to step 4 will be required anytime the workplace design
evaluation does not reach a satisfactory ergonomic quality level and
presents evident risk of WMSDs, otherwise, the final optimal
workplace design is defined and approved (step 8). The cycle of
steps 5, 6 and 7 can be accurately performed using advanced DHM-
tools (Lämkull et al., 2009), as shown in the case studies application
at the end of the paper. DHM-tools are useful for the purpose of
providing designs for standing and unconstrained working
postures, the design of various auxiliary devices and their needed
space for movements.
As a conclusion, to improve efficiency and respect cycle time,
each workstation must undergo a minute and well planned task
time assignment, and relative balancing/sequencing techniques
should be applied according to the specific assembly layout selected
(steps 9 and 10).
2.4. Management and improvement phase
The framework developed aims to find the assembly system
configuration which best allows to maximize both productivity and
36 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

work force physic and psychosocial conditions. To reach this final Table 1
objective the procedure involves 4 management steps in order to Comparison of the main pre/post intervention results reached in the two case
studies.
assure the complete monitoring and the constant improvement of
the process. As discussed in Neumann et al. (2006), efficient CASE STUDY A: shower enclosures
incentives system need to be defined and performed (Step 11), Before After
incremental improvements should be periodically planned and Goals 1. Minimization of
realized on the assembly system configuration and balancing- critical task time
sequencing arrangement (Step 11), performance indexes evaluated 2. Minimization of
work fatigue
(Step 12) and constantly compared with the final output realized by
3. Increment in
the system. These incentive system elements permit to improve the productivity of 15%
psychosocial conditions and consequently decrease the risks of Critical 1. High personnel
WMSDs, as described in Neumann et al. (2006). Standard task times environmental turnover
database should be constantly updated, thanks to final system variables 2. Medium/low
work content
throughput data collected, in order to produce standard data that
assignable to the
companies can use in future design studies (step 14). same operator
Assembly system Fixed position: Un-paced serial line
3. Results configuration parallel individual with 5 manual work
work stations stations and Bucket
Brigade method
3.1. Methods in industrial applications Workplace Assembly on Work-piece positioned
workbench in in vertical up-ended on
The step by step methodology proposed in Section 2 and horizontal position a lift platform with 2
depicted in Fig. 1 has been implemented to improve productivity consecutive lifting
Average Workload About 28 min About 5 min for cycle
and ergonomics of the assembly system of two industrial compa-
per operator for cycle
nies, manufacturing very different products (with respect to size Whole System About 10 pcs/day About 12 pcs/day
and work content), and with a very different industrial contexts. Troughput
Company A develops and produces shower enclosures, while CASE STUDY B: welding machines
company B produces welding machines. The potential effectiveness
Before After
of the framework adopted on assembly system design and opti-
Goals 1. Maximization of
mization is discussed in the following sections only to describe the
system flexibility
main critical steps of its application (Step 4 and steps 5-6-7 that 2. Reduction in manual
lead to the optimal workplace choice). The complete description of assembly content
the procedure’s application to case studies is trivial to the author’s 3. Easy handling of the
purposes. The application of the qualitative cross-matrices intro- product in the system
Critical 1. High personnel
duced in Section 2 is reported in Fig. 9 to support the authors in the
environmental turnover
selection of the best production flow strategy and layout configu- variables 2. Medium/low work
ration, according to the objectives of Step 4 (Fig. 1). content assignable to
In the case of company A, the study developed a new flexible un- the same operator
3. High power of
paced assembly line, producing 15,000 shower enclosures per year
trade unions
with large variety in size, functionality and design. The workers in Assembly system Serial un-paced lines Set of un-paced
this company are involved in assembly steps of approximately configuration with manual workstations semi-automatic parallel
5 min. At the end of each step the product is handled over from one and manual products lines, with 7 manual
station to other using hand trucks. handling parallel workstations
and 3 automatic
In the case of company B, the study developed a set of un-paced
pre-assembly stations
semi-automatic serial lines, with 7 manual parallel workstations Workplace Manual assembly on 6 work-pieces positioned
filled by three semi-automatic pre-assembly stations for each line. workbench (lot for lot) on a rotating table
The project aimed at the re-design of the assembly process of 10 Average Workload About 5.6 min for cycle About 20 min for cycle
per operator
different product families and a total of 150 different items, with
Whole System About 435 pcs/day About 480 pcs/day
the workers involved in assembling, testing and packing the whole Troughput
product. The complexity of the products is low and the production
volume is high, about 100,000 pieces per year. Ergonomics evalu-
ations, performed on different workplace design solutions,
permitted to define the best workplace arrangement of a single solutions could maximize the productivity of a new product family
workstation and of the whole system in both case studies. To help and boost workforce physical and psychosocial conditions with
the reader comprehension, relevant results have been summed-up respect to the ergonomics of the whole system. First, video
in Table 1, in order to compare pre/post intervention solutions recordings of existing similar workstations were made, in order to
obtained in both case studies. Further insights in the case studies determine assembly process scheme and assembly task times with
are presented in the following paragraphs. a yearly product demand equal to about 15,000 pieces (with an
assembly process of 28 min per pieces), the variety of products and
3.2. Case study A high labour turnover revealed the necessity of a flexible un-paced
line configuration with serial workstations balanced with the
The present paragraph describes the application of the meth- Bucket Brigade method. Moreover, old assembly lines presented
odological framework discussed in Section 2 in an industrial operations length of about 5 min, with the completion of more than
setting, leader in the production and distribution of multifunctional 30 different elementary tasks (Fig. 3a). Grey circles in the cross-
shower enclosures. The main questions investigated were which matrix b), c) and d) of Fig. 3 confirm the configuration choice,
layout configuration could be defined and which workplace considering the very low level of automation, a low displacement in
 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42
Fig. 4. Case study A: five different workplace layouts investigated.
assembly phases, a low number of setups and a high flexibility
necessity, a normal requirement of trade unions resulting in
a medium/low work content assignable to each operator. Analyzing
the four qualitative matrix, the work group defined that the new
assembly system would be an un-paced serial line subdivided in 5
manual serial workstations, with one operator each. After that, five
different workplace solutions were selected and investigated
(Fig. 4):
1) Assembly on workbench in horizontal position (this solution
was adopted in the company before the intervention)
2) Assembly in vertical position with up-ended shower enclosure
on a truck
3) Assembly in vertical position with overturned shower enclo-
sure on a truck
4) Assembly in vertical position with the possibility to turn the
enclosure from up-ended to up-side-down position
5) Assembly in vertical position with up-ended shower enclosure
with the possibility to lift it using a platform.
Using EM-Plant (a Tecnomatix’s simulation tool), as software to
simulate and evaluate current and future assembly processes,
a virtual model of each of the five solutions was developed. The
software allowed to measure each elementary task applying
an MTM module and a contextual work posture evaluation. In
considering the risk of WMSD, the software applied the OWAS
method (Ovako Working-Postures Analysis System) which allowed
to attribute a specific class of risk to the postures assumed during
the job, and to calculate the relevant index of risk on the bases of
the time frequency (by a multi-moment time study). The simula-
tion analysis conducted for solution 1 clearly showed that the
operator had to turn around the Table to be able to perform all the
tasks (Fig. 5). Although this solution implied some time loss and
process inefficiency, it did not create ergonomics problems or
physical fatigue.
The OWAS analysis of workplace solution 2 (Figs. 6 and 7)
showed the presence of two main critical phases, characterized by
a value of action category (according to OWAS scale) equal to 3,
which mean “evidently harmful actions”. Fig. 6 shows results of the
OWAS analysis conducted for solution 2: the scheme reports the
Action Category values of the elementary task called “cabin dril-
ling” as a function of the task duration (in seconds).
Fig. 6 shows that during the drilling activity, the operator
assumed positions that were not only uncomfortable, but also
extremely harmful, which caused fatigue and efficiency reduction
of the operator, who was forced to frequent breaks during the
workday. Because all workplace solutions (2 and 3) with vertical
position of the cabin presented critical ergonomics issues, the
possibility to perform the assembly process using an automated
37
platform to turn the enclosure up-side-down had been considered.
Three rotations of the platform became necessary in order to
minimize fatigue and reduce cycle time. However, this solution
presented space problems and assembly times slowdown because
each rotation caused the already assembled components to change
orientation. Moreover, due to the evident big dimensions of the
product, the rotation of the cabin was quite slow penalizing the
assembly times. In conclusion, solution 2, 3 and 4 with the shower
column in a vertical position did not reach acceptable balance
between effort and ergonomics, even if some of them reached low
task times. In fact, as explained before, there were critical actions
that stressed the lumbar region whenever the operator was
required to assume an unnatural position in order to achieve better
visibility during the assembly.
A better option is presented in solution 5 with the shower
column positioned in vertical up-ended on a lift platform pro-
grammed to perform 2 consecutives lifting, as illustrated in Fig. 8.
The two lifting (of 40 cm and 110 cm for a man 180 cm tall) allowed
the operator to work in the optimal working area at all times (in
accordance with standard ergonomics principles), eliminating
harmful actions and obtaining low OWAS index value. Table 2
shows that in reference to the critical elementary task “cabin dril-
ling”, solution 5 matched the minimization of task time with the
minimization of work fatigue, resulting in an overall increment in
productivity of the 15%, in comparison to solution 1. In conclusion,
even if solution 2 seemed to provide an increase in productivity, it
implied also a high level of fatigue and high recovery time of the
operator during the day, while the application of conceptual inte-
grated procedure resulted in the creation of an optimal workplace
solution.
Fig. 5. Case study A: virtual men-model developed for analyzing workplace solution 1.
38 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

Fig. 6. Case study A: Workplace solution 2. OWAS action categories and critical tasks.

3.3. Case study B
This paragraph describes the application of the methodological
framework discussed in Section 2 in the different industrial reality,
of a company leader in the production and distribution of welding
tools. The critical questions investigated were the same as those for
the previous case study: which layout configuration could be
defined and which workplace solutions could maximize the
productivity of a new product family and boost the workforce
physical and psychosocial conditions with respect to the ergo-
nomics of the whole system. The need to design a new assembly
system started from the necessity to produce “standard” welding
tools in a very cost-effective way, in order to stay competitive. To
solve this industrial case the framework in Fig. 1 was applied step
by step. The new assembly system design and the ergonomics
evaluation have been supported and validated by the creation of

Time Operation Action Code Posture Combination Time Operation Action Code Posture Combination

(Sec) Category Back Arms Legs Load Head (Sec) Category Back Arms Legs Load Head
1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 36 42.08.00 3 1 1 5 1 2
2 0.02 Walk to fr12 1 1 1 7 1 2 37 43 3 1 1 5 1 1
3 0.04 1 1 1 7 1 1 38 43.06.00 2 1 1 6 1 1
4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 39 45.08.00 Reach to fr17_6 1 1 2 6 1 1
5 3.02 Reach to fr17 1 1 2 2 1 1 40
6 1 41 46.02.00 Pose 2 1 1 6 1 1
7 5 Pose 1 1 1 2 1 1 42 54.02.00 3 1 1 5 1 1
8 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 43 55 2 1 1 4 1 2
9 6.02 Reach to fr2 1 1 1 2 1 1 44 55.02.00 1 1 1 3 1 2
10 6.08 1 1 2 2 1 1 45 55.04.00 1 1 1 2 1 2
11 9 Pose 1 1 1 2 1 1 46 56.02.00 Walk to fr18 1 1 1 7 1 2
12 10 1 1 1 2 1 2 47 56.04.00 1 1 1 7 1 1
Reach to fr17_1
13 10.08 1 1 1 2 1 1 48 58 Reach to fr17_4 1 1 1 2 1 1
14 13 Pose 1 1 1 2 1 2 49 59.06.00 1 1 1 2 1 2
15 14.02 Walk to fr17 1 1 1 7 1 1 50 60.04.00 Pose 1 1 1 3 1 2
16 16 Pose28 1 1 1 2 1 1 51 60.06.00 2 1 1 4 1 2
17 16.08 2 2 1 2 1 1 52 60.08.00 3 1 1 5 1 2
18 17 Op1 3 2 1 4 1 1 53 61 3 1 1 5 1 1
19 17.08 3 2 1 4 1 4 54 61.06.00 2 1 1 6 1 1
20 19.06 Pose29 3 2 2 4 1 4 55 63.04.00 Reach to fr17_5_4 1 1 2 6 1 1
21 20.02 Pose28 3 2 1 4 1 4 56 64.04.00 Pose 2 1 1 6 1 1
22 23.06 Pose34 3 2 2 4 1 4 57 67.08.00 Reach to fr17_3 1 1 2 6 1 1
23 24.02.00 Pose28 3 2 1 4 1 4 58 68.02.00 Pose 2 1 1 6 1 1
24 27.04.00 Pose35 3 2 2 4 1 4 59 78.02.00 Walk to fr172 1 1 1 7 1 1
25 28.02.00 Op2 3 2 2 4 1 1 60 80 Pose3 1 1 1 2 1 1
26 29 3 2 1 4 1 1 61 80.02.00 2 1 1 4 1 1
27 29.02.00 2 2 1 2 1 1 62 82 Reach to fr17_5_5 3 2 1 4 1 1
28 29.04.00 1 1 1 2 1 1 63 83.08.00 3 2 2 4 1 1
29 30 1 1 1 2 1 2 64 84.02.00 Pose3 3 2 1 4 1 1
30 30.02.00 Walk to fr123 1 1 1 7 1 2 65 91.06.00 Reach to fr17_5_7 3 2 2 4 1 1
31 30.04.00 1 1 1 7 1 1 66 92.02.00 Pose3 3 2 1 4 1 1
32 32 Pose 1 1 1 2 1 1 67 95.08.00 Reach to fr17_5_6 3 2 2 4 1 1
33 33.06.00 1 1 1 2 1 2 68 96.02.00 Pose3 3 2 1 4 1 1
34 42.04.00 1 1 1 3 1 2 69 98.02.00 Pose 2 1 1 4 1 1
35 42.06.00 2 1 1 4 1 2 70 99.06.00 1 1 1 2 1 2

Fig. 7. Case study A: simulation results of workplace solution 2 (working times and ergonomics evaluation).
 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42
Fig. 8. Case study A: solution 5 is the optimal assembly configuration resulted with 2 consecutive lifting of the work-piece.
a virtual men-model with the same software used in case A. For the
purpose of this article, we did not focus on the analysis of software
tools, but on the qualitative and quantitative considerations that
lead to the choice of the optimal assembly system configuration.
First, video recordings of existing similar workstations were made
to determine the assembly process schemes and assembly task
times. In the original system the workload of a single workstation
was equal to 5.60 min, with a percentage of personnel annual
turnover (computed by the company) equal to the 27% of the total
workforce employed in the assembly activities. Such high turnover
had a great impact on the production and represented an envi-
ronmental variable that could not be ignored in the analysis. The
global demand of products per year was high, with about 100,000
pieces. Elementary assembly tasks had an average duration of
57.29 cmin (1/100th minute) with a standard deviation of the 45%.
The precedence diagrams were composed on average by 45
elementary tasks with a highly sequential development, especially
in the second part of the cycle, which did not permit many different
tasks combination alternatives. The total length of the assembly
process (including the testing and the packaging of the final
product) of a welding tool differed from a minimum of 20.52 min to
a maximum of 35.78 min, depending on the model. After a careful
evaluation of the cycle time desired for each model, the production
annual budget forecast, assembly task times and feasible automa-
tions, the study estimated that the minimum number of human
operators necessary to complete the task was equal to 9.6. Once all
Table 2
Case study A: results on task times and body postures obtained applying the inte-
grated framework in Fig. 1.
Shower Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solution 5
column
drilling
Task time 230 210 220 215
(sec)
Action Low Medium/high Medium/high Medium
category
(OWAS)
Efficiency 56% 62% 59% 60%
39
data were collected in the preliminary phase of the analysis, the
case study was placed in the matrix a) in Fig. 9, as shown by the
dashed square. Other qualitative and quantitative evaluations
conducted with the help of operators and management allowed the
creation of three additional dashed squares in the cross-matrix b),
c) and d) (Fig. 9) considering the following elements: the intro-
duction of a medium level of automation to reduce repetitiveness
and fatigue in some critical operations; the presence of a medium-
high displacement in assembly phases, and the increased number
of setups together with the necessity of high flexibility in variety
and volume; the high power of trade unions and the medium/low
work content assignable to the same operator. This permitted the
correct identification of the best system configuration.
Fig. 9 shows clearly that the best solution should adopt parallel
procedures and an un-paced system between each workstation,
taking into consideration the possibility to create several fixed
positions or a singles line with parallel branches. Considering the
available space, the space normally occupied by a single worksta-
tion and the need of a modular structure and integration in the
process, it was decided that the new assembly system would be an
un-paced semi-automatic serial line, with 7 manual parallel
workstations, each of them filled by one automatic cables-assembly
station, one automatic mantles-deflection and one semi-automatic
bottom pre-assembly station. The changes lightened the manual
assembly content with the introduction of pre-assembled
elements. Finally, a central circular conveyor belt on which prod-
ucts’ pallet were fixed at regular distance, permitted an easy
handling of the product in the assembly line and brought finished
pieces to the testing machine and from there to the semi-automatic
packaging station. Fig. 10 shows the whole layout configuration of
the assembly line and the men-model developed to study in detail
the workplace with parallel stations. The automatic central
205 conveyor permitted to fill the parallel assembly workstations with
the pre-assembled pieces completed in the other part of the line,
Very low and created a constant buffer between workstations. Additional
small buffers setup in input and output of each workstations
64%
assured the individual decoupling of each resource on the line, as
required by the qualitative study performed before.
40 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42

a b
Operations lenght, precedence diagram

SERIAL PACED SERIAL SEMI- AUTOMATIC

Labour turnover and absenteism

SERIAL MANUAL

Assembly phases displacement

SERIAL PACED/UNPACED LINE AUTOMATIC SERIAL LINE WITH
LINE LINE
Assembly time variability

UNPACED LINE SERIAL STATIONS

Assembly cycle lenght
sequentiality

AUTOMATIC
SEMI-AUTOMATIC
SERIAL UNPACED PARALLEL SERIAL LINE WITH
SERIAL U-LINE PARALLEL LINES PARALLEL LINES
LINE MANUAL LINES PARALLEL
or U-LINE
STATIONS

UNPACED LINE U-LINE BUCKET PARALLEL LINES

MANUAL FIXED SEMI-AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC
BUCKET BRIGADE BRIGADE or FIXED
POSITIONS FIXED POSITIONS PARALLEL LINES
METHOD METHOD POSITIONS

Operators number, Production rate Automation

c d
Flexibility (mix and production quantity)

UNPACED LINE FIXED POSITIONS FIXED POSITIONS

Lenght of sustainable working load

UNPACED PARALLEL/U-LINE/FIXED
BUCKET BRIGADE PARALLEL LINES WITH PARALLEL WITH PARALLEL
POSITIONS
METHOD STATIONS STATIONS

SERIAL UNPACED PARALLEL PARALLEL

PARALLEL LINES
SERIAL UNPACED LINE WITH PCED PARALLEL LINES/U-LINE LINES/U-LINE
or FIXED
LINE or U-LINE PARALLEL LINES BUCKET BRIGADE BUCKET BRIGADE
POSITIONS
STATIONS METHOD METHOD

SERIAL PACED SERIAL UNPACED UNPACED LINE

PACED SERIAL UNPACED SERIAL
LINE LINE BUCKET BRIGADE
LINES LINES
METHOD

Setup number Influence of Trade Unions

Fig. 9. Qualitative cross-matrices analysis according to the framework in Fig. 1: dotted circles (case study A) and dashed squares (case study B).

In this industrial case the “Cube Model” (Sperling et al., 1993) and repetitive load (Time). These factors may vary from low, to
was applied for the biomechanical evaluation of manual work at medium, to high, as shown in Table 3.
each assembly workstation, based on the evaluation of three Sperling et al. (1993) suggest that the ergonomic quality of an
interdependent factors: solicitation due to the posture (Posture), activity can be estimated by a multiplicative model where values 1, 2
external force necessary to perform operations (Force) and static and 3 are assigned respectively to low, medium and high requests:

Fig. 10. Case study B: entire system layout configuration and man-model of a parallel assembly station.
 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42 41

Table 3
Criteria for classification of basic demand dimensions according to the Cube Model (from: Sperling et al., 1993).

Dimension External force Posture Repetition

Low demands Force levels below 10% of
maximal exertion
Medium demands Force levels between 10% and
25% of maximal exertion
High demands Force levels exceeding 25%
of maximal exertion
Optimal working zone. Less than 15 
shoulder abduction/flexion. Upright trunk
Near optimal working zone. Shoulder
abduction/flexion or trunk flexion between15  and 45 
Hand at or above shoulder level. Shoulder
abduction or flexion or trunk flexion exceeding 45 
<0.1 c/min (shoulder) and
<1 c/min (hand/arm) and <10 c/min (fingers)
>0.1 c/min (shoulder), or
>1 c/min (hand/arm), or >20 c/min (fingers)
>2.5 c/min (shoulder), or
>10 c/min (hand/arm), or >200 c/min (fingers)

Note: Repetition is counted in cycles/minutes (c/min), where one cycle is defined as one back and forth movement.

would do this for every product family assembled in the production

A ¼ ðPostureÞ$ðForceÞ$ðTimeÞ
where:
1  A  27
The activity can be considered acceptable if A  5, quite
dangerous if 5 <A < 10 or not acceptable if A  10. Such “Cube
Model”, was applied together with the “virtual men-model” to
assist the workplace design phase of the parallel workstations, in
order to evaluate the incremental ergonomics improvements
studied. The rotating assembly system developed, shown in Fig. 10
and tested by a simulation software tool, presented an optimal
behaviour in terms of posture, force and repetitiveness.
The application of Cube Model on most relevant tasks shows
that in the new system, all activities are acceptable, with an average
index A equal to 4.3.
In conclusion, automation of manual operations previously
repetitive and uncomfortable in the assembly system designed
permitted to assign a greater number of tasks to each operator of
the 7 parallel work stations thanks to the improvement of the
ergonomics conditions. The changes improved line flow, incre-
menting flexibility and modular structure, and making the
assembly process applicable to any product model. Given the new
flexibility allows the system to easily handle turnover without
interrupting the process, due to its ability to operate with a variable
number of human resources.
4. Discussion and limitations
As previously discussed at length, the results of these industrial
applications largely support our theoretical exceptions. New and
innovative qualitative maps should be created by experts to
support the choice of the best assembly layout configuration since
the beginning of the analysis, taking into consideration the tech-
nological and environmental variables. The four maps proposed by
the authors in Fig. 3 have been built thanks to the collection of
several industrial experiences and published case studies.
In spite of its great achievements, the present study has its
limitations, like most of its predecessors. First of all the correlation
between technological and environmental variables defined in this
framework supports the methodology in a qualitative way, over-
coming the difficulties of measuring the environmental variables
presented. The qualitative matrices proposed should be seen as
a sort of “Boston Matrix” for marketing decisions, they help
controlling the different aspects that influence a strategic choice.
Thus a designer must use the four matrices proposed in this work
only as a planning tool and always try to quantify them according to
the industrial sector in analysis. He/she would look at the assembly
process of a product family and place it into the matrix, considering
the level of environmental and technological variable with respect
to the industrial sector in which the company operates. He/she
plant.
Further researches will be addressed to the quantification of the
4 matrices specific to different industrial sectors in order to develop
new standard tools and parameters.
Observational methods, like OWAS, RULA and the Cube Model
are relatively user friendly and provide results easily comparable
against benchmarks to establish intervention priority, while inter-
vention effectiveness can be measured giving scores to each body
part to be used for a “before” and “after” comparisons. Some can
argue that such methods are limited if compared with other more
rigorous tools, because posture categories are rather broad for the
trunk and shoulders (in OWAS), or upper limbs (in RULA), and
because the method does not offer information on duration of
postures, nor separates left and right arms.
5. Relevance to industry
According to Abdullah et al. (2003), the need of a new meth-
odology for the initial selection of the assembly layout configura-
tion is often recognized in industries. In real contexts, under
a concurrent engineering paradigm, the production engineer does
not have much time for experimenting with new assembly layouts
to actually assess the best solution for the specific case he/she is
working on. The new methodological framework proposed in this
work aims to assist the designer from the feasibility study phase to
the detailed design phase. The four qualitative cross-matrices
provide a useful way of looking at the opportunities available to the
designer, and help him/her analyze which production strategies are
suitable and which ones aren’t, so that he/she can decide on the
most appropriate production flow strategy and plan how much
resources allocate to the system and where (with a rough-cut
capacity planning). The framework developed in Fig. 1 is supported
by the application of four qualitative cross-matrix (Fig. 2), in which
it is possible to evaluate critical variables influencing the system
and predict the best assembly layout configuration. The framework
supports all the aims of ergonomics in assembly: it highlights the
importance of an integrated design taking into account at the same
time technological variables (such as time and methods), envi-
ronmental variables and ergonomics evaluations. During the two
industrial cases development, the framework was followed step by
step and assisted by the construction of two virtual men-model. In
case A, the qualitative cross-matrix analysis lead to a new serial un-
paced line with 5 consecutive manual work stations and the new
ergonomic workplace design resulted in a 15% improvement in
productivity, a considerable reduction in fatigue levels and number
of injuries. In case B, the procedure leads to the creation of a semi-
automatic and modular serial un-paced line with 7 parallel work-
stations, equipped with multi-turn rotating tables. Video record-
ings, OWAS analysis, “Cube Model” evaluation and a software
simulation have been used in both cases. This research stresses
the idea that assembly design and ergonomics should be
42 D. Battini et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41 (2011) 30e42
complimentary to each other to assess time efficiency and method
analysis in modern industries.
References
Abdullah, T.A., Popplewell, K., Page, C.J., 2003. A review of the support tools for the
process of assembly method selection and assembly planning. International
Journal of Production Research 41 (11), 2391e2410.
Allesina, S., Azzi, A., Battini, D., Regattieri, A., 2010. Performance measurement in
supply chains: new network analysis and entropic indexes. International Jour-
nal of Production Research 1366-588X 48 (8), 2297e2321.
Bartholdi, J.J., Eisenstain, D., Bunimovich, L., 1999. Dynamics of two- and three-
worker "Bucket Brigade" production lines. Operations Research 47 (3), 488e491.
Battini, D., Faccio, M., Ferrari, E., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., 2007. Design configu-
ration for a mixed-model assembly system in case of low product demand. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 34 (1e2),
188e200 (13).
Battini, D., Faccio, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., 2008. Balancing-sequencing
procedure for a mixed model assembly system in case of finite buffer capacity.
International Journal Advanced Manufacturing Technology 44 (3e4), 345e359.
Becker, C., Scholl, A., 2006. A survey on problems and methods in generalized
assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research 168 (3),
694e715.
Berlin, C., Örtengren, R., Lämkull, D., Hanson, L., 2009. Corporate-internal vs.
national standard - A comparison study of two ergonomics evaluation proce-
dures used in automotive manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 39 (6), 940e946.
Carey, E.J., Gallwey, T.J., 2002. Evaluation of human postures with computer aids
and virtual workplace designs. International Journal of Production Research 40
(4), 825e843.
Daniellou, F., 2007. Simulating Future Work Activity Is Not Only a Way of Improving
Workstation Design, @ctivités, Vol. 4 n. 2.
De Looze, M.P., Van Rhijn, J.W., Van Deursen, J., Tuinzaad, G.H., Reijneveld, C.N.,
2003. A participatory and integrative approach to improve productivity and
ergonomics in assembly. International Journal of Production Planning and
Control 14 (2), 174e181.
Drury, C.G., 2000. Global quality: linking ergonomics and production”. International
Journal of Production Research 38 (17), 4007e4018.
Dul, J., Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies.
Applied Ergonomics 40, 745e752.
Eklund, J.A.E., 1995. Relationships between ergonomics and quality in assembly
works. Applied Ergonomics 26 (1), 15e20.
Eklund, J.A.E., 1997. Ergonomics, quality and continuous improvement-conceptual
and empirical relationships in an industrial context. Ergonomics 40 (10),
982e1001.
Engstrom, T., Medbo, P., 1997. Data collection and analysis of manual work using
video recording and personal computer techniques. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 19, 291e298.
Engström, T., Hanse, J.J., Kadefors, R., 1999. Musculoskeletal symptoms due to
technical preconditions in long cycle time work in an automobile assembly
plant: a study of prevalence and relation to psychosocial factors and physical
exposure. Applied Ergonomics 30, 443e453.
Garrigou, A., Daniellou, F., Carballeda, G., Ruaud, S., 1995. Activity analysis in
participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15 (5), 311e327.
Kadefors, R., Engstrom, T., Petzall, J., Sundstriim, L., 1996. Ergonomics in parallelized
car assembly: a case study, with reference also to productivity aspects. Applied
Ergonomics 27 (2), 101e110.
Lämkull, D., Hanson, L., Örtengren, R., 2009. A comparative study of digital human
modelling simulation results and their outcomes in reality: a case study within
manual assembly of automobiles. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
39 (2), 428e441.
Lin, J.-H., Maikala, R.V., McGorry, R., Brunett, C., 2010. NIRS application in evaluating
threaded-fastener driving assembly tasks. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 40 (2), 146e152.
Lindenmeyer, C., 2001. How to Design and Conduct a Computer-Integrated Time
Study with Active Element Performance Rating (CITS APR). Copyright, C-FOUR
July 8, 2001. Page 1 of 16.
Neumann, W.P., Ekman, M., Winkel, J., 2009. Integrating ergonomics into produc-
tion system development e the volvo powertrain case. Applied Ergonomics 40,
527e537.
Neumann, W.P., Winkel, J., Medbo, L., Magneberg, R., Mathiassen, S.E., 2006.
Production system design elements influencing productivity and ergo-
nomics. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26,
904e923.
Neumann, W.P., Medbo, L., 2010. Ergonomic and technical aspects in the redesign of
material supply systems: big boxes vs. narrow bins. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 40 (5), 541e548.
Porter, M.E., 1985. Corporate Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Perfor-
mance Free Press, New York.
Rubenowitz, S., 1997. Survey and intervention of ergonomic problems at the
workplace. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19, 271e275.
Scholl, A., 1995. Balancing and Sequencing of Assembly Lines. Physica-Verlag, Hei-
delberg. 106e197.
Siemieniuch, C.E., Sinclair, M.A., 2002. On complexity, process ownership and
organisational learning in manufacturing organisations, from an ergonomics
perspective. Applied Ergonomics 33, 449e462.
Siemieniuch, C.E., Sinclair, M.A., 2006. Systems integration. Applied Ergonomics 37,
91e110.
Sinclair, M.A., 2007. Ergonomics issues in future systems. Ergonomics 50 (12),
1957e1986.
Sperling, L., Dahlman, S., Wikström, L., Kilbom, A., Kadefors, R., 1993. A cube model
for the classification of work with hand tools and the formulation of functional
requirements. Applied Ergonomics Jun 24 (3), 212e220.
Sundin, A., Christmansson, M., Larsson, M., 2004. A different perspective in
participatory ergonomics in product development improves assembly work in
the automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (1),
1e14.
Van Lingen, P., Van Rhijn, G., De Looze, M., Vink, P., Koningsveld, E., Tuinzaad, G.,
Leskinen, T., 2002. ERGO tool for the integral improvement of ergonomics and
process flow in assembly. International Journal of Production Research 40 (15),
3973e3980.
Wick, J.L., McKinnis, M., 1998. The effects of using a structured ergonomics design
review process in the development of an assembly line. In: Kumar, S. (Ed.),
Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety. IOS Press.